Connecticut Expanded Gambling Dead In The Water for 2015
A bill that would expand slots in Connecticut beyond two casinos that are indian dead, says State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff.
Connecticut was one of the early adopters with regards to came to adding casino gambling in the northeastern United States.
Whenever Foxwoods started in 1986, the closest competition was in Atlantic City, and even with the opening of Mohegan Sun ten years later, those two casinos stood out as an island in an area devoid of gambling options.
But times have actually changed, and some in Connecticut have felt that it is time to expand gambling beyond those two gambling enterprises to be able to take on increasing competition in the area.
Regrettably for those who had been in favor of such measures, they won’t be to arrive 2015.
Connecticut State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) announced on Monday that a proposition that would have legalized slot machines outside of the two casinos that are indian hawaii was dead for the season, putting off a vote on the problem until 2016 during the earliest.
‘While this is a difficult spending plan period, Connecticut’s economy continues to recover,’ Duff stated. ‘The unemployment rate is down, and now we continue to grow jobs.
Former Speaker Amann’s concept of putting slot machines at off-track sites that are betting the Massachusetts border is not the response, and any expansion of gaming needs become done in consultation utilizing the tribes. With that said, this proposition will not be raised in the Senate.’
Expanded Competition in Region Prompted Calls for Slots
The prospect of expanding slots throughout the state ended up being raised as a result of the competition that is increasing up in surrounding states.
Massachusetts recently authorized two casinos and a slots parlor, and could well accept a casino that is third this year. New York recently recommended adding three upstate casino-bonus-free-money.com casinos, could decide to suggest a 4th, and might add downstate resorts in the near future.
And other locations like Pennsylvania, Atlantic City, and Rhode Island are all within driving distance for many Connecticut residents also.
However, you will find concerns that adding such slots around the state may perhaps not be appropriate. Both the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes (which operate the two indigenous American casinos in the Connecticut) operate under revenue-sharing compacts which were agreed to more than 25 years ago.
Under those agreements, the tribes must spend 25 percent of their slot profits towards the state; however, they in turn have the exclusive rights to operate such machines.
That agreement is fairly lucrative for the state of Connecticut, though revenues have dropped in recent years. Slot revenues peaked for the continuing state back in 2007, when they took in $430 million.
That figure is projected to drop to $267 million in the current fiscal 12 months, and analysts are predicting that number to fall to $191 million by the 2018 fiscal 12 months, which will be the initial year after MGM opens their brand new resort in Springfield, Massachusetts.
Some Lawmakers Think Bill Will Still Be Considered Sooner or Later
Previous State Speaker of the House Jim Amann, a Democrat from Milford, said that while he knows why Duff would actually choose to kill the bill, he still thinks that the idea is fundamentally something their state has to think about.
‘It’s about jobs. It’s about profits. It is about protecting Connecticut revenues,’ Amann said. ‘ This will be a battle for the success of Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods and our parimutuels,’ Amann said. ‘ I don’t understand why there wasn’t more urgency on this.’
Other legislators have stated that despite Duff’s responses, it’s still early in the 12 months, and anything could happen within the months in the future.
‘Pitchers and catchers haven’t even arrived yet,’ said State Representative Stephen Dargan Haven that is(D-West). ‘It’s early in the season.’
Belgian Regulator Denounces Game of War: Fire Age as ‘Illegal Gambling’
Game of War: Fire Age, which the regulator that is belgian uses ‘gambling elements’ to encourage users to play and spend money. One 15-year-old spent €25,000, it stated. (Image: gamer.com)
The Belgian Gaming Commission (BGC) has declared war on the social media game Game of War: Fire Age, which it accuses of providing casino-style games to players as young as nine.
Game of War is a massive multi-player online game (MMO), an in-depth strategy role-player, big on social elements, that’s available primarily on the iOS os and produced by software developer device Zone.
In it, budding heroes that are roman invited to coach armies, form alliances, and build empires, because of the aim of becoming all-powerful. Or one thing.
It is certainly one of the top grossing games on the mobile market, doing so well in reality that the makers had been recently able to fork away $40 million to hire Kate Upton, clad in plunging silver corset, to star in a series of big budget commercials.
The game is ‘free to relax and play,’ but in order to prosper in this fantasy globe, of course, players need to fork out for improvements.
‘Cannot be Tolerated’
And, yes, it features a casino. It’s a casino where you gamble with virtual money, but if you want to purchase stuff to achieve that digital money, is it gambling?
It’s a concern that was troubling the BGC, which desires to see Machine Zone charged with operating gambling that is illegal offering these solutions to underage players, and has consequently filed a report to Belgian law enforcement asking it to act.
It cites the case of one 15-year-old Game of War player who spent a total of €25,000 playing the game over a period that is unspecified.
BGC director Peter Naessens said that it was clear that Game of War utilizes casino mechanics that are ‘essential’ to the overall game and which also encouraged users to pay money. ‘You can play it in a far more enjoyable way he said if you are using the casino elements.
The targeting of underage players, he added, ‘cannot be tolerated, and now we do not have a permissive attitude towards this.’
The BGC has had social gaming in its places for a while. Final year it wrote an open letter to the newly-elected Belgian government expressing its concern about the potential of social gaming to encourage underage gambling.
It complained that the earlier government appeared unwilling to tackle the niche and has made no significant work to regulate the gaming industry that is social. Legislation related for this issue and drafted by the Commission had already been presented to parliament, it said.
The situation with social gaming is that, while games of chance may well be present, since there isn’t any ‘stake,’ included, at minimum in the traditional sense, strictly speaking it’s can’t be gambling, by definition.
This means, unless governments commence to adopt some type of regulation, social gaming does not belong to the remit of the gaming operator at all.
Golden Nugget Wins $1.5 Million Mini-Baccarat Case
The judge ruled that the mini-baccarat game during the Golden Nugget violated the Casino Control Act, and therefore all winnings and stakes is returned. (Image: destination360.com)
The Golden Nugget in Atlantic City has won a longstanding battle that is legal erupted following a game of mini-baccarat at the casino in 2012.
State Superior Court Judge Donna Taylor said that 14 players must get back the money they won within the game because the game itself contravened state video gaming laws.
During the game in question, the opportunistic group of gamblers spotted that a fresh deck of cards wasn’t shuffled and that the cards were being dealt in a specific order that repeated itself every 15 hands, allowing them to know which were coming next.
Upping their bets to as $5,000, they won the ensuing 41 hands in a row, banking $1.5 million.
The casino had paid out $500,000 before it recognized one thing ended up being amiss, and promptly shut down the game, calling the police and the DGE.
Card Manufacturer’s Misstep
The court heard that the cards were meant to arrive from the manufacturer, Kansas-based company Gemaco, in a pre-shuffled state, via a machine that uses complex algorithms to ensure that no two decks would be the exact same.
This deck that is particular but, somehow slipped through the device.
The Golden Nugget sued the gamblers to reclaim the sum it had paid out, while the gamblers countersued for the $1 million they believed they were owed in the following weeks. a court that is preliminary in 2012 ruled in favor of the gamblers and the casino vowed to appeal.
Nevertheless, owner Tilman Fertitta overrode his lawyers and agreed to pay the disputed winnings, however the deal fell apart when some of the gamblers refused to dismiss their claims of illegal detention from the casino.
Casino Control Act was Violated
The appeal that is ensuing ruled against the gamblers, a verdict that has been appealed once again and upheld this week. ‘ The dealer did not immediately pre-shuffle the cards prior to the commencement of play, while the cards were not pre-shuffled in accordance with any regulation,’ the judge wrote. ‘Thus, a literal reading associated with the regulations … entails that the game violated the (Casino Control) Act, and consequently was not authorized.’
The Golden Nugget’s lawyer, Louis Barbone, had argued that the game’s legality came down to whether game had been a ‘game of chance’ and whether it had been ‘fair.’ Because the result was ‘predetermined’ by the deck, he stated, it may not be considered to be described as a game of chance at all.
This week’s ruling contradicts the opinion of this nj-new Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement at a hearing in which said that it did not feel that the game broke any New Jersey gambling laws september.
The judge ruled that the gamblers must return the $500,000 given out by the casino, while the casino in turn must refund the gamblers’ original stakes.